Reference text: The applicants in the instant OA sought a declaration that Paragraph 9 of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme and Clause 20 of Annexure 1 of RBE: No.101/2009, dated 10.06.2009 are ultra vires Article 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India and Fundamental Rule 22. They also sought a grant of 5400 grade pay on par with their juniors and subordinates, based on a prior Tribunal order affirmed by the High Court. The primary grievance was that their regular promotions were counted for MACP, denying them further financial upgradation, while juniors and subordinates received higher benefits. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue concerning stepping up of pay on par with juniors was subject to a stay by the Supreme Court in related SLPs (SLP (C) No. 14918-14919/2016). The High Court had previously directed that the impugned order in a similar matter be kept in abeyance until the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals. Considering the High Court's judgment on a similar issue, the Tribunal directed the respondents not to act upon the impugned orders until the disposal of the case sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 14918-14919/2016, stating that the result would be subject to the outcome of the cited SLP. Legal Headline: Tribunal defers action on pay parity pending Supreme Court decision on similar matter.

The applicants, who are railway service employees, joined as Accounts Clerk Grade II/I and were subsequently promoted to Section Officer/Senior Section Officer (Accounts)/TIAs with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800.

Following the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations and the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, their regular promotions were counted for MACP purposes, denying them further financial upgradation.

This led to their juniors and subordinates receiving greater financial benefits and higher grade pay.

Some applicants made representations that went unaddressed.

An identical issue was previously allowed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1075 of 2010, affirmed by the High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 1078/2012, and the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) and review petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Despite this, the benefit was not extended, leading to contempt proceedings.

The present applicants are similarly placed and their repeated representations have yielded no relief.

The learned counsel for the applicant brought attention to a similar order by the Tribunal in OA 1620/2015 and a judgment by the Hon’ble High Court in WP No. 31252 of 2019, noting that SLPs are pending before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 14918-14919/2016.

1. Whether Paragraph 9 of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme and Clause 20 of Annexure 1 of RBE:No.101/2009, dated 10.06.2009, are ultra vires Article 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India and Fundamental Rule 22.

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to a grade pay of Rs. 5400 on par with their juniors and subordinates, computed on the basis of batch seniority in the qualifying examination Appendix IIIA, and on the basis of the order in O.A.1075/2010 dated 05.08.2011 as confirmed in W.P.No.1078/2012 dated 3.4.2014.

3. Whether the respondents should be directed to refix the pay of the applicants by stepping up the grade pay or granting financial upgradation based on RS(RP) Rules 2008 of their length of service in the post of SO/Sr.SSO/Sr.ISA/TIA with consequential benefits.

The Tribunal referred to the principles underpinning the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, intended to provide financial upgradation to employees.

It specifically cited the precedent set by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1075 of 2010, which was affirmed by the High Court of Madras and whose Special Leave Petitions and review petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The core legal principle at play is the stepping up of pay on par with juniors, a matter previously decided by the Karnataka Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court of Karnataka, though subject to an ongoing stay by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s).5973 of 2018 and linked matters like SLP (C) No.21803 of 2014, and specifically SLP No. 14918 -14919/2016.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues concerning the stepping up of pay on par with juniors were pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The Hon'ble High Court of Madras, in a judgment dated 04.12.2024 related to WP No. 31252/2019, had directed that while the issue of stepping up of pay was decided by other courts, the SLPs before the Supreme Court effectively stayed the implementation of such directions.

The High Court had explicitly stated that while the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal should be kept in abeyance, necessary actions should be taken after the Supreme Court disposes of the appeals.

Given that SLPs are pending on the same issue before the Supreme Court (SLP No. 14918 -14919/2016), the Tribunal applied similar reasoning.

The Tribunal thus decided that it could not issue a definitive order on the prayers for declaration, grant of higher grade pay, and refixation until the Supreme Court resolves the overarching legal question in the pending SLPs.

The final outcome will be subject to the result of the cited SLP.

Accordingly, the Original Application was disposed of on these terms.